180 comments:

Their statements – coming after Ms. Rice’s conciliatory remarks during a meeting designed to mend fences with her three critics and smooth the way for her nomination as secretary of state if President Obama decides on her as the successor to Hillary Rodham Clinton – attested to the bitterness of the feud between the White House and Republicans over Benghazi.

You see, it's the mean, nasty, obstructionist Republicans who will do anything to stop a black woman from being Secretary of State. She was being conciliatory.

These Repubs like Mccain and Graham have to unlearn this bending over backwards crap.

Better yet how about pushing aside these old ineffective Repub Senate leaders and put the Rubios, Ayottes & Toomeys & Rand Pauls out front? They are smarter, have better ideas and don't give two shits about this so-called Senate decorum. Why shoudl Repubs do that? When is the last time Reid or Shumer or Boxer showed any Senate decorum?

I would say I don't believe she's got a chance in hell of becoming the next SoS but I honestly don't know anymore. I'm sure the media will convince everyone that all those mean old white guys opposing here are just a bunch of racist hate mongers who are afraid of her awesomeness. And I'm pretty sure a majority of people are moronic enough to believe that.

I honestly think that the Obama admin's attempt to nominate her is a straight-up "I won" move, designed entirely to push limits and rub their power in the faces of their opponents. The fact that they get to cry racism and sexism is an added bonus.

You can't conciliate someone who doesn't want to be conciliated.You can't make someone understand something if their political success depends on them not understanding it. You can't convince someone of truth of something if they are professionally and emotionally invested in the opposite of truth.

Ms. Rice went on national television and tried to sell a patently false story for political advantage. Who gives a damn how conciliatory she may be? It does not have to indicate bitterness toward anyone to say they should not hold an important government position. The press operates on a third grade level.

If you knew you weren't going to walk away in better shape (e.g. more plausible deniability), why would even have such a meeting?

Obama must believe Repubs will cave rather than being called racists. It's a gamble when he knows Kerry would be approved 100-0. If I were the Repubs, I would send a back-channel message, Kerry gets approved no questions, Rice starts a war. Part B, not only does Rice start a confirmation war, Kerry for SecDef starts another war.

Susan Rice would not have been considered a possible candidate for Secretary of State without Benghazi. Patraeus and her are merely used as deflection for the president's failure to provide Cross Border Authority, which would have saved American lives.

Well, it could be a backhanded way of getting John Kerry confirmed without a big fuss.

But I do not know that having John Kerry as Secretary of State is good for the country; we might well be better off with Susan Rice, if that's the choice.

And Susan Rice went on those shows and did what she was told to do - I think after some others refused to go - and there is only one person tonedeaf and powerful enough to make her do that.So that is a problem.

Susan Rice and David Petraeus are both tools. Difference is that Petraeus is being groomed for the pasture, while Rice is being primped up, as the next magic person of color, for run at POTUS in 2016. "The Party" needs glamorous tools and she fits just like Obama did/does. YMMV.

Kerry? For either SECDSEF or SECSTATE? A professional liar from Massachusetts, with that record dating to 1971, is an abomination. Then again, Massachusetts just elected Liz [Squatting Cow] Warren...so maybe it's the old/new thing...blatant liars for high office.

They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel right now. Rice lied to the American people about Benghazi, and Kerry lied to Congress about Vietnam, and apparently needed to get Teddy Kennedy to intervene to get his honorable discharge and his medals back. Think of that - someone becoming SecDef after getting an officer's equivalent of a dishonorable discharge.

I don't know why Kerry would want to be Sec of State, he's always done just fine injecting himself into US foreign policy from the Paris Peace Talks to Nicaragua and more. He's always excelled at blowing our enemies.

Let me add that I would much prefer Kerry as Sec of State to Sec of Defense. Not all of his instincts are wrong, which is something that I can's say about Rice and Clinton. The problem I see is that he probably doesn't have the mental horsepower for the job. His incoherency was sold by the MSM as nuance, but I think that it is more likely the result of an elite education for someone who didn't have the brains to really benefit from it. Still, he is pretty good at saying nothing as he sounds so erudite.

The problem with him at Defense is that he would likely be loathed by many of those reporting to him. He exhibits and stands for much of what the military despises.

Shouldn't Rice be better at conciliation if she's got what it takes to be Secretary of State?

Let's see. Bill Clinton, alleged Groper by Kathleen Willy, alleged exhibitionist by Paula Jones, alleged Rapist by Juanita Broderick. Thomas Clarence, accused of saying "Is that a pube in my coke" to Anita Hill, and the entire country is up in arms.

Meanwhile, Dems get advantage out of the word "Vagina", and no one in the press points out the irony of Bill Clinton campaigning.

Benghazi, incompetence, it really doesn't matter. What can't a Democrat get away with? And more importantly, what can't a female Democrat get away with, alla Barbara Boxer, who said she supports a Woman's right to an abortion up until the moment of birth. Now, here you have a Black Female Democrat.

Are you kidding me? She walks, she can say "What" and "Where's the tea"; who cares if she has a brain or not?

It was the video. It was all due to a shadowy character. Free speech sparked outrage and so we must stomp on free speech. We must jail free speech. We must write speeches for the UN general assembly that apologize for our shadowy character and our free speech.

I know you are smarter than that. Several of us, with experience in similar situations, have tried to explain it. It may not be a dib deal, even if four men died, but it absolutely been a pack of lies from 9/11 onward. Classic example of first liar doesn't stand a chance meme.

Inga ... go fuck yourself hypocrite who worries about a daughter in harms way but gives less of a shit about others who die there. Your kid survived the attack at Camp Bastion/Camp Leatherneck integrated compound...but some US Marines died there. Sometimes you just out do yourself.

Noted is that I can't recall your query about how 15 rag heads managed to penetrate the perimeter at Camp Bastion to split up and engage US Marines in a fire fight.

We are never going to get a straight answer on Benghazi because we are not supposed to know what was going on over there. Forget the killing of the four Americans. Forget that, that was nothing compared to what was happening. We were running guns out of there to Syria. Hushfuckinghush. And back there in the "Annex" where they fought like tigers for hours and where the help when it finally arrived headed straight for: back there they were asking prisoners questions.

I am, by the way, cool with all of that and cool with the idea that we should not know some things. Absolutely should not.

But when shit happens you would hope that our leadership would have in mind better cover stories, more air tight cover stories. That is the great disappointment of Benghazi and it is also why the "investigation" will end on the very day of the indictment of Walker.

Macroorchidism is a genetic disorder found in males where a subject has abnormally large testes. The condition is commonly inherited in connection with fragile X syndrome, which is also the second most common genetic cause of mental disabilities.

Democrats who lie directly to the American people on TV are a very successful breed, and thoroughly loved as champions and role models by the left.

It was a video.I did not have sexual relations with that woman.Health care debate will be on Cspan.I will accept public campaign funding limits.I will close Gitmo."Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk"You can keep your insurance and your doctor.And on and on......

Why would they ever stop lying right to you face when it works out so well for them when they do?

And Aridog, I know DAMN WELL that Marines died there, that day. I said so myself here on this blog the day after it happened. Truly that was an uncalled for statement by you, I thought you were better than that.

Are you drunk today? Gotta agree with you on this one, where it pertains to your "we liberals", but not all liberals here by a long shot...you DO suffer from genetic mental disabilities caused by Macroorchidism. Like a broken watch, your right about twice a day. Bingo!

Inga...yeah, you mentioned two Marines died, but no posed no query about how and why. Call it avoiding Bastionitis, right? I don't need a lot of guts to call you when you parrot bullshit repeatedly and pollute an otherwise decent discussion. When you mock circumstances that took lives, you are an asshole. Period. Who else here, literally does that?

McTriumph, I have asked man times in these Benghazi discussions, why were we still in Bengahzi after the Brits left? Why didn't they have enough security?

BUT those questions aren't being focused on by McCain and his buddy Lindsey, they are focusing on what Susan Rice's talking points were on that given Sunday? Shouldn't more people here be outraged by THAT?

The problem with not letting go of Benghazi is that Obama and co. will never go down because of it. And the general public couldn't care less about it. In the meantime they get to laugh and laugh at the GOP chasing its tail. There's probably an Alinsky rule about it.

deborah said...The problem with not letting go of Benghazi is that Obama and co. will never go down because of it. And the general public couldn't care less about it. In the meantime they get to laugh and laugh at the GOP chasing its tail.

I dunno deborah--it's like the people forget all the lies told about Palin as it never happened. How "respectable" bloggers and columnists who sunk to the lowest depths are given a pass. It just doesn't seem right.

Aridog, I didn't vote for Obama. If Obama's administration was negligent in keeping the Embassy staff in Libya aft the Brits left, then THAT should be investigated and if there is fallout from that, so be it. I've said this numerous times on this blog also.

Why the hell don't you folks ask why we were still in that god forsaken country?

Strawman argument, eh...pose a hypothetical circumstance ... see because we WERE in that country on your Obamessiah's watch, so why don't YOU ask he or his minions why? They will lie to you, of course, but you'd at least be stepping up to what you demand of "you folks."

Inga asks: Why the hell don't you folks ask why we were still in that god forsaken country?

I gave POTUS the benefit of the doubt that he was up to something. See here. But the timing before the election and the deliberate obfuscation for political reasons done on the graves of servicemen was beyond the pale.

Except for Nathan Alexander, he did ask some great questions, when he asks for answers to the legitimate questions, I don't want a stupid talking point bogus controversy from clouding the answers of the REAL questions.

Chick, whoever said politics was fair? Republicans are in reaction mode. Time to get smart.

re Rice, if I have it correctly, only a simple Senate majority is needed to confirm her. It first has to get out of the Foreign Relations Committee, of which Kerry is the Chair. He must be outraged if this is the real plan. He really wanted it. Will he comply?

Aridog, this blog has 90% conservatives, maybe 10% liberal. Have you noticed that less and less liberals are commenting lately? I wonder why?

Who cares. Really.

If you conservatives here really want an echo chamber, well it doesn't speak well for you. You want no one to disagree with you? Is that how you live your life? Demonize your opposing voices?

Pathetic.

Tell that to the state of California where it's solely Democrat Party rule now. Republicans there are nothing but place holders at this point. As far as demonizing your opposing voices, maybe you should look inward into yourself and your party. Your president spent the better part of his life and the last four years demonizing everyone who opposed and he's going to continue to do that until he leaves office. Stop deluding yourself.

Inga said... If you conservatives here really want an echo chamber, well it doesn't speak well for you. You want no one to disagree with you? Is that how you live your life? Demonize your opposing voices?

Pathetic.

Pathetic is thinking incoherent hectoring adds anything to the conversation. As if her intent here isn't thread spiking and increasing the price - in wasted time - of everyone else's participation.

Well, Inga, if this is a non-story to you, then I suspect that from now on, you will no longer be commenting on it anymore. I guess the investigation you so richly waiting for has yielded either nothing for you or the results you desired. So long now.

I want to explore new uses of the word "literally". Shakespeare was literally the finest English writer of the 16th century. Richard Nixon was literally boring. Barrack Obama is literally self-centered.

Bob Ellison said... I want to explore new uses of the word "literally". Shakespeare was literally the finest English writer of the 16th century. Richard Nixon was literally boring. Barrack Obama is literally self-centered.

Garage literally uses the term "literally" too often and inappropriately.

garage mahal said... McCain wonders why we had details about the bin Laden raid more quickly than the Benghazi attack.

Hmmm, I wonder what's different about those two. One was a raid led by us, and one was an attack on us?

correct, however, The WH clearly knows who was in the meetings, what orders were given, what help we sent, at what time etc, etc. We're not talking about what happened in Libya. What happened inside the WH isn't much different in complexity in the two cases, only the outcome. One was PR, the other must wait for a final report...

All of which, with photos, they supplied within hours of the Osama raid, but the attendee list of the meeting at 1700 hours on Sep 11? Nobody seems to know who was at a mtg in the WH with the POTUS 2 months later...

Inga ...You want no one to disagree with you? Is that how you live your life? Demonize your opposing voices?

Do you really think your 6 one word post blast between 3:23 and 3:31, 6 in 8 frigging minutes, is serious commentary that anyone could debate, agree or not?

No? You think it was humor? Wonder who you are mocking? If not mocking, what was that staccato post series?

Lady, you do it frequently, drop in on a thread and pollute it like a pigeon with diarrhea. When challenged you cry outrage and fire off ad hominem spikes. You take initial issue with a commenter at times who has not addressed you on a thread then whine they've been mean to you previously and you're "not gonna take it!"

"Piece of work" is the best I can define you. You want respect and to be taken seriously, give some respect and act like a grown up. You know, skip the vague vagina humor, etc. It'd be a start.

do the republicans prefer a john kerry appointment over a rice appointment? scott brown would probably win the special election. there are a lot of conspiracy theories here. Does this one hold water? It is a long play.

Aridog, I do not need your respect, I do not want your respect, i have the respect i want and need from my loved ones, my feiends and myself. You are a commenter on a political forum, I don't know you and vice versa. It's beyond strange that you some of you here do not ever trace back the beginning of an insult exchange.

This is the same kind of out of touch mentality I've seen since day one by many conservatives here. It's why you lost the election and were so surprised, so outraged that you and your spokespersons like Limbaugh, Fox and others conjure up these " scandals", while ignoring the REAL questions. Out of touch with reality.

This place has been fascinating to me in a car wreck sort of way, it's been amazing to hear what you folks think, how you automatically jump to the wrong conclusions, it's uncanny. Some here seem to have an insightful thought that veers away from the group think, that's also amazing and a nice surprise.

You are your worst enemies in the political realm, you continue to march right, continue to think your candidates haven't been conservative enough, continue to be used as pawns by the real leaders of the Republican Party, Limbaugh, Hannity, O Reilly, Grover Norquist.

Good luck winning any Presidential elections unless enough of you come to your senses and see what has been happenin to you. I hate calling you dupes, but yes, you are dupes.

Good luck winning any Presidential elections unless enough of you come to your senses and see what has been happenin to you. I hate calling you dupes, but yes, you are dupes.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: the left cares about winning elections, and the right cares about developing the best policies for the country. It's revealing those focused only on winning conside others the dupes. Sadly it's their children and grandchildren that will pay the price for their foolishness, but obviously they don't care about them.

I like to read the comments on this blog because of the several witty people who post, but I stop reading at the point where the usual crew of bores begin to insult one another. I am sure most readers do likewise.

Inga said...Aridog, I do not need your respect, I do not want your respect, i have the respect i want and need from my loved ones, my feiends and myself. You are a commenter on a political forum, I don't know you and vice versa. It's beyond strange that you some of you here do not ever trace back the beginning of an insult exchange.

This is the same kind of out of touch mentality I've seen since day one by many conservatives here. It's why you lost the election and were so surprised, so outraged that you and your spokespersons like Limbaugh, Fox and others conjure up these " scandals", while ignoring the REAL questions. Out of touch with reality.

This place has been fascinating to me in a car wreck sort of way, it's been amazing to hear what you folks think, how you automatically jump to the wrong conclusions, it's uncanny. Some here seem to have an insightful thought that veers away from the group think, that's also amazing and a nice surprise.

You are your worst enemies in the political realm, you continue to march right, continue to think your candidates haven't been conservative enough, continue to be used as pawns by the real leaders of the Republican Party, Limbaugh, Hannity, O Reilly, Grover Norquist.

Good luck winning any Presidential elections unless enough of you come to your senses and see what has been happenin to you. I hate calling you dupes, but yes, you are dupes.

I will say this for Rice. She is very cute and easy on the eyes. However, when I realize the kind of ideological boat anchor she is, I just end up seeing Hillary Clinton and go running screaming into the night.

dcm said...do the republicans prefer a john kerry appointment over a rice appointment? scott brown would probably win the special election.

This conspiracy theory crosses a basic threshold, at least the conspiracists would benefit from their actions, an essential element that has been notably lacking for most of the nutty theories in play on this site.

Bill Clinton doesn't want to get tied down in DC unless it's in the White House. Why would he? Since 1990 he's got to fly around the world on his Wall Street friends' corporate jets chasing ass. His dilemma now is how to get Hillary busy working on her campaign so as not to be in the way and cramp his debauchery.

As I said a couple of years ago, the Obama Era is the Human Centipede made flesh. The MSM is connected to his anus directly. The Lefties at Althouse and across the Web are next. The people that swallowed what was fed into their mouths by voting for the clowns the second time around, complete the Beast. Rice was The Beet of the Week as her Party needed. Maybe she'll be the last SOS as the Party of Incompetence puts what's left of the past civilization into the ground sideways.

Rice is a loyal dem soldier who has been a pawn in this whole charade since she was trotted out to the Sunday political talk shows. As a sec of state nominee she is just a sacrificial lamb. This will provide cover to the GOP senators who can act tough by rejecting her nomination. This will also provide a stage for the GOP to display their displeasure about the Benghazi debacle and coverup. All those histrionics will clear the path for a relatively smooth confirmation of their fellow senator, Kerry, as the next sec of state. Kerry was Obama's 1st choice all along for sec def.

Obama's response to Benghazi is vile appeasement. It's appalling. Anybody who participated in it should be denied promotion and advancement. We need people who will stand up to Obama and check his uglier impulses.

Four Americans are dead, and you're making fun of the fact that some of us want answers as to why they died.

How about this, let's say that four more Americans are killed, and one of them is your daughter. How funny would that be? I would imagine that you'd want some answers as to why she died, and if the Administration kept feeding the puplic bullshit stories, you'd be outraged.

No Allen, I'm making fun of small minds, like yours. I'm making fun of those fools like you, who focus on talking points by Rice instead of questions that got those four killed. I'm making fun of those whose outrage is fake and ignore 4000+ Americans that were killed in Iraq for nothing.

I'm laughing at what fools you republicans have turned into. It would be even funnier if it weren't so sad and sick that sour grapes is now driving your party, with disregard for the good of America.

Rice is a loyal dem soldier who has been a pawn in this whole charade since she was trotted out to the Sunday political talk shows.

That's exactly right. But do we want a pawn to head up state? I would like people in the administration who can stand up to their boss when he is wrong.

As a sec of state nominee she is just a sacrificial lamb.

No, this is wrong. Obviously Obama wants her for state. He got fairly emotional about it at his press conference.

This will provide cover to the GOP senators who can act tough by rejecting her nomination.

You think Obama wants to "provide cover" to the GOP? Scoff.

This will also provide a stage for the GOP to display their displeasure about the Benghazi debacle and coverup.

"Hey guys, I'll pretend to appoint Rice and you pretend to be mad."

Sorry, that's just silly. This is now a public showdown, and Obama will lose face over it. Where is the upside in an embarrassing defeat, right after his election?

In the process of this embarrassing defeat, he (or the media) will portray the GOP as racist. The Washington Post has already sunk to that level. Why would the GOP secretly plan, with Obama, for a charade where the GOP is called racist in the media?

The Republicans are drawing a stand on Benghazi in the face of this vile slander against their character. It is, I think, a brave and principled thing to do. Give them credit where credit is due.

All those histrionics will clear the path for a relatively smooth confirmation of their fellow senator, Kerry, as the next sec of state.

Would have been smooth anyway. The Democrats own the Senate. It's doubtful anybody would have fillibustered Kerry.

The conspiracy theory that has some merit is the charge that the Republicans want a run at Kerry's seat.

Kerry was Obama's 1st choice all along for sec def.

Then he should have nominated Kerry and avoided this fight. Why float Rice's name at all? She fronted his lie for Benghazi.

The Republicans were dispirited about their election loss. Obama has united them, by nominating the woman who told a very public lie--Obama's lie--about the Benghazi scandal.

Question: Can anyone explain how it is that US deaths in Afghanistan for all of Operation Enduring Freedom, 10 years, stand at 2161, but 1214 of those deaths occurred in the last 3 years, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

How do 56% of total deaths occur in 30% of the conflict period, the latter 30% in fact? Who has been in charge during these three loss regressive years, both civil executively and appointed to command militarily?

I don't want to be small minded and jump to any conclusions here. Data Link Here.

@DrillSgt,The Swift-boaters' beef with John Kerry in Viet Nam was that he was a stupid reckless glory-hunter likely to get himself and them killed for no good reeason, not that he was a "limp-wristed fop."

As Secretary of State or Defense he would be in a position to cause real damage, but not for lack of "macho."

I'm making fun of those fools like you, who focus on talking points by Rice instead of questions that got those four killed.

It's funny what people can convince themselves to maintain their sense of superiority. We have to pierce the cover story in order the get to the facts below, commonly referred to as drilling down. If some people pretend one thing interferes with the other rather than recognizing it as a first step that's just bizarre. But when such an outlandish claim is taken as proof others are fools rather than they... well there just isn't anything else to say is there?

On rules of Engagement for the ISAF today...here is an interesting video interview embedded in an article, featuring one of the US premier light infantry units, "The Herd" ... AllenS will be pleased I think.

Hagar said... The Swift-boaters' beef with John Kerry in Viet Nam was that he was a stupid reckless glory-hunter likely to get himself and them killed for no good reeason, not that he was a "limp-wristed fop."

I don't think this is true. Their objection seemed based on the combination of three actions. First Kerry did his best to protect himself - seeking offshore duty, and when that failed using the technicality of three purple hearts (some of which were dubious to them since there were no witnesses) to attain discharge.

Then when he returned to the US he slandered the men he spent virtually no time with (3 months) as reminiscent of Genghis Khan. But since Kerry was only there 3 months and spent his spent his entire service trying to get out he could not possibly have been speaking from experience or knowledge. He was grandstanding, not whistleblowing.

And last he decided after 30 years to use those same servicemen he slandered as his election pawns.

People forgave him the first, even though it meant to them he was unreliable in a combat zone and therfore a danger to everyone. Many people hated him for the second. And the swift boaters refused to be used by the third.

It was a some of the Swift-boaters who got him the third Purple Heart and recommended that the "Three and out" rule be invoked to get him out of Viet Nam.

And my theory about his infamous actions with the anti-war movement when he got back, is that he was working undercover for naval intelligence, or possibly, free-lancing. That would be consistent with his behavior before and after.

Inga, never once have I ever claimed to be a Republican. You have also never heard me say that I thought going into Iraq was a good idea. As a twice wounded combat veteran I have never ignored or forgotten about our KIAs and WIAs. Never. Wanting answers from those in charge of this clusterfuck in Libya is not sour grapes. In short, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Aridog, the rules of engagement have irked my ass since it's inception. If we had ROE back in WWII, we would still be fighting Germany and Japan. Nice to see the men of The Herd have that take it to them attitude. Thanks.

How does anyone explain Kerry's statement of "deep distrust" of the government that he claims he first experienced while in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, when he heard President Nixon deny the US had anyone in Cambodia.

Nixon became President 20 January 1969.

As a stretch...if he was *deep undercover* in 1968 the presumption is that it was highly classified, yet he runs off at the mouth about it?

The fact is that John Kerry testified to events he never participated in, witnessed or otherwise had any first hand knowledge of in any way, pertaining to infantry operations in Vietnam. John Kerry was never even for one day in the infantry or operating in an infantry capacity.

At the very least he relayed hearsay unsubstantiated *war stories* third and fourth hand.

Aridog said...Question: Can anyone explain how it is that US deaths in Afghanistan for all of Operation Enduring Freedom, 10 years, stand at 2161, but 1214 of those deaths occurred in the last 3 years, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

That's easy, Obama's Afghan Surge. After the initial invasion and end of the war, Bush's small footprint occupation plan was basically to protect the capitol. Bush and Cheney knew what the British and Russians learned in Afghanistan, they would have never committed to a surge. Afghan's only value is a base of operations and being on Iran's east flank. But, remember Obama's and the Democrats' constant campaigning on Afghanistan being the "real war" in criticising Bush. Well Obama got his war.

McTriumph ... you mean the Obama-Petraeus-McCrystal surge when Obama determined the number of troops required from his vast combat experience. One of his stooge generals wrote ROE's to die by then went out of control and had to be replaced by another stooge general, who essentially left the ROE's stand.

Saving more Afghan lives while killing more Americans by double. McChrystal started that and Petraeus institutionalized it.

"Can any of you democrats explain why Susan Rice insisted it was "the video"?"

Last night on Fox news it was noted that Rice said that the al-Qaeda reference was removed for security purposes, not political. Then they showed two clips from two of the Sunday shows she went on saying that the Obama administration had decreased/eliminated(?) the al-Qaeda threat.

Also, all three panelists, Krauthammer, Liasson, and Hayes predicted a Rice confirmation.

John Kerry has never "run off at the mouth" about it. If this is what happened, and it came to light, it would absolutely kill him with the Democrats.

But, his behavior in Viet Nam (and he volunteered for it) was consistent with a young officer/budding politician gong there to "have his ticket punched," including collecting photos and 8 mm. movies of himself, rakishly attired John Wayne style. And he collected a Bronze Star and a Siver Star in addition to those Purple Hearts.See also the Swiftboaters' desriptions of him and his actions there then.

Then he comes back to the U.S., joins the anti-war movement, though still on active duty, and engages in all those infamous activities.

Next he is discharged, goes to law school, and re-surfaces back home in Boston as an Assistant District Attorney with all his medals and service ribbons intact and proudly displayed on his office wall. Then runs for Lt. Gov. with Dukakis, and the rest is history.

I can understand trying to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, even if I totally disagree. However, your description of "consistency" boggles my mind:

But, his behavior in Viet Nam (and he volunteered for it) was consistent with a young officer/budding politician gong there to "have his ticket punched," including collecting photos and 8 mm. movies of himself, rakishly attired John Wayne style.

My God, where did you get that romantic notion? Did you ever serve in harms way and ever see anyone do this?

What that list is "consistent" with is a fraud. The system demanded officers get "tickets punched" and that determination to put inexperienced officers in the field cost a lot of lives. But you suggest that Kerry wasn't seeking a navy career.

As for the rest of the stuff about collecting photos and making movies (please)...THAT is contrary to anything I ever saw in two different theaters in Asia including Vietnam. But he DID do it, establishing the fact he was building an image, in relative safety, rather than serving anyone, least of all the men under him.

I say "relative safety" considering, for example, the circumstance of the death of Dicky Chapelle in combat, with US Marines, in 1965, while she was photographing and reporting on Operation Black Ferret near Chu Lai. Taking pictures and notes in direct combat is dangerous business. Chapelle began her career with Marines at Iwo Jima. Her hallmark, as that of many other brave reporters of the day, was to travel and move with the soldiers or marines who were under fire.

To suggest Kerry's antics were normal is irritating to say the least. Periodically officers like that disappeared in a flash, so to speak. I don't blame him for wanting out in 90 days.

Another interesting special feature of Kerry's career...he managed to suck up and get a 180 early out separation from active service, from a stateside posting, when the policy was that such "early outs" were awarded only if a returning Asian theater (OCONUS) individual had LESS than 151 days remaining on their active duty commitment.

I'm sorry, but my experience in those times, in Vietnam and on the Korean DMZ, do not reflect any of the behavior you seem to find normal in Kerry. I can't even get my head around any of it.

Really? His own words suggest otherwise. If he was in Cambodia, at any time, it was classified ...we weren't there officially. His recalling Christmas 1968, in Cambodia, and President Nixon's words as "searing in to his mind" mistrust of the government...well that pretty much means he was never in Cambodia, let alone December 1968...when Lyndon Johnson was still President.

But that created image does fit the career building effort, even if horse pucky.

This will be my last comment on this thread. I want to point out the difference between myself and John Kerry. When I received my first purple heart, it put in a military hospital in Japan for three months. After I was physically able to return to duty, I returned to Viet Nam to my unit.

@Aridog,Last entry.I am sorry, I should have noticed the date in your post. I thought you referred to his role in the anti-war movement in the early -70's, which is when I suggest that he might have been working "undercover."

Inga wrote:No Allen, I'm making fun of small minds, like yours. I'm making fun of those fools like you, who focus on talking points by Rice instead of questions that got those four killed. I'm making fun of those whose outrage is fake and ignore 4000+ Americans that were killed in Iraq for nothing.

you keep bringing up Iraq. I posited four long posts about Iraq And Clintons involvement and asked if his involvement was a lie and you have yet to respond. Why not? you can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk? Hypocrite.Now as to asking the questions about what got those four people killed. You seem to be suggesting that there IS something there, only the repubs are asking the wrong questions. So why aren't YOU holding the president to account for what you say got those four people killed? again, hypocrite!

Hagar ... I understand. However, nothing excuses his comments and testimony in the "Winter Solider Investigation." He fabricated stories, unrelated to any personal experience, and has never recanted them or explained them...because he can't. They were fabrications based upon infrequent aberrations grown mystic large in the minds of the protest community. I think you had to be there in those days. I was.

Even if he was "under cover" which I do not believer for a minute, his primary testimony was about Marines and Army infantry, not something Navy Intelligence would have been focused upon....even under Admiral Zumwalt.

You should note AllenS's comment about his disposition following a bullet wound requiring hospitalization for 90 odd days. That is not a scratch that lets you pass through the dispensary in a few minutes. Many infantry soldiers never even left the line for worse abrasions. In AllenS's case, in Japan, IIRC, upon recovery he would have been offered an "ITT"...e.g., "Intra-Theater Transfer" to Korea, Thailand, Guam, et al. Some took them...we called their injuries "victory wounds." I had one ITT guy in my squad in Korea who had been literally shot to pieces pulling drag for his platoon, with a M60 machine gun. I understood his desire to ITT. AllenS did not elect to do that, however.

I also understood and admired those who survived grievous wounds and still returned to their original units and their comrades under arms...which a great many soldiers and marines did in those days. Infantry tends to build a brotherhood. A family, no less.

I know it is hard to understand mentally or emotionally. Another friend of mine had his first purple heart from a serious shrapnel wound, but stayed in country and returned to duty in a month or so. He was a squad leader, a sergeant like me, who was "short" with 10 days left in country when he took his squad out on patrol....and a bouncing betty mine blew off one leg, shredded the other, and one arm. He has stayed active with veterans organizations and became a successful businessman. He says he only uses his artificial leg when he feels like walking. I seriously doubt I could have done what he did and carried on like he has...I just doubt my courage to do so.

What is hard to grasp is that so many men did return to their units, did overcome great handicaps,and moved on. If you were not there in those days I know it must seem like fantasy. It is not.

You might better see now why many veterans have no use for Kerry. It is an espirit de corps thing. He had none, then or now.